Why does everyone insist that this movie is "based off the cover of the book?" Speaking as someone who has actually READ the book, I can tell you that certain scenes are included word-for-word, including nearly everything in the classroom and Rico's encounter with the one-armed recruiting officer. And little details like the special tearaway shit used for flogging also found their way in, which shows at least someone was paying attention. I'm not saying it's an especially faithful adaptation: we still lose the suits, the skinnies, and several long boring training sequences, but it's more than just an unrelated movie with the title slapped on, like so many are fond of saying. (Before you bring it up, yes I know it started as an unrelated script, but there were clearly some major rewrites)

Because the tone of the book and the tone of the movie are utterly different? That it ditched the book's admittedly ham-fisted pro-military conservative tone and message of What It Takes To Be A Man and tossed in a clumsy "satire" bashing the very pro-government, pro-military ideals the book was based on? Because the book's biggest twist (Johnny's race) was sacrificed on the altar of Dawson Casting?

In addition, director Verhoeven openly admitted that he only read the first few chapters of the book.

You do know that the director doesn't WRITE the movie?

Director has a good deal to do with the tone of a movie, which is one of the most radical departures of the film v. the book.

I wouldn't even give the movie that much credit, considering that the book's cover shows Powered Armor. To be more accurate would be to call it "based on the title of and some of the names in the book".

I read the original multiple times as a juvenile and as an adult and thought the movie was close and caught the libertarian/fascist emotional vein that runs thru Heinlein's work (and a lot of early sci-fi really) effectively. The entire book is a screed on how the individual must serve the state before being able to participate in the state.

The suits were missing in SST 1 and SST 2 but they were introduced in SST 3: Marauder.

Maybe because the scenes that WERE preserved had their messages changed and bits removed that would have explained their context within the society better. For instance, they removed the scene where Johnny encounters the legless recruitment officer after work wearing his PROSTHETIC LEGS and inquires as to why he takes them off to work. And the recruitment officer immediately explains that the government is sick of all these people joining the military and having to find make-work for them to do and that the military is really not so much dangerous as it is boring. Also the scene where the OCS instructors explain that the main reason they continue limiting the franchise the way they do is essentially just because society continues to function.

The most egregious example of a scene being changed was the explanation of why they need to know how to use knives when they can just push a button to Nuke 'em. Even if the scene in the movie was much more entertaining. In general, the "Based on the cover of the book" complaint is both overly snarky AND Defictionalized, with the books published after the movie came out featuring a modified version of the movie poster (making it a Book Cover Based On A Movie).

In addition, the book is to a large extent an argument for an entirely-voluntary military, versus a conscript military (it was written when the USA still had the military draft), which the movie just doesn't engage with at all.

The Movie was originally written as "Bug Hunt at Outpost 9". When the producers heard there was a book where people wage war on bugs, they bought the rights, changed the title, the names of a few characters, and wrote a couple of scenes from the book in. That is the extent to the novel's influence on the movie. Shame.

For me, it was that their military was Too Dumb to Live and was a massive Epic Fail. In the book, the Fleet and Mobile Infantry are a Badass Army. I fell in love with the power armor of the book, especially because Heinlein's MI model is what the US military is today. I just hate the movie because of the MI's fall from grace.

I would agree that "based on the cover of a book" is overly charitable. "Actively undermining the point of the book" is closer to the mark. The only two scenes I recall being even remotely similar from book to film are either changed so much they may as well have not bothered, or make no sense since they're taken out of context. That is to say, the "why use a knife" scene may make the same broad point, but completely misses (and even undermines) Zim's moral objection to overwhelming force. The recruiter scene is likewise done poorly. . . first of all, the recruiter in the film has a prosthetic hand, where he didn't in the book, which raises questions as to why he apparently could have a robot hand but not robot legs. It also completely glosses over (as mentioned above) the later scene where Johnny sees the recruiter with his replacement limbs, and the moral point raised there. . . the Federation wants you to know exactly what the ultimate price of Service might be, and you should only sign up if you're willing to accept that price.

I always took "based off the cover of the book" as more of a generic phrase meaning the adaptation wasn't very faithful to the source material instead of a literal description.

For me, the main problem was not just that they changed things from the book, but that they changed things to be the opposite of the way the book described them, even when the book referenced (unknowingly) the way they were changed for the movie and explained at length why things were not done that way.

Throughout most of the movie, and even lampshaded in one of the instructional videos, it is clear that the small caliber automatic rifles they issue the Mobile Infantry are almost useless when trying to kill the bugs. Then, at one point one character gets wounded and pulls out a shotgun, possibly the only one seen in the entire movie. For a few seconds, it's one-shot-one-kill on every bug he aims at. So... why no general issue shotguns or (even better) auto-shotguns?

I don't know what film you were watching, but Rico fires 6 or 7 shots into ONE bug to bring it down then runs out of ammo shooting the second one. Buckshot has low penetration and rarely goes through body armor (to which I imagine bug carapace is similar in durability). If he and the rest of the MI use slugs to deal with the penetration issue, then they have to aim directly at the nerve stem and if they miss they have to fire another one of their shots, of which the Ithaca 37 (which is the actual gun used in the Marita props) only holds between 4 and 8 depending on model (probably 4 due to the length of the underbarrel but increased to about 10 or 12 in the film). In short, you either need ImprobableAimingSkills or you'd need to spend about half of your magazine taking down one bug, the other half taking down another then begin the painfully slow reload process of a pump shotgun all while thousands of other bugs are charging toward you and your mates. In standard MI squad size (4 people) that equates to about 8 dead bugs per 4 dead troopers.

The "shotgun" is just the automatic rifle to burst fire. The difference there was Rico was aiming at the bug's nerve stem.

But the standard rifle has a shotgun underbarrel attachment. You can see Rico using this in the first battle, complete with a pump action, and a second barrel underneath the main one that is firing.

Perhaps it is an issue of range? Great weapon up close, as he was forced to be by injuries and situation, but ones life expectancy at that distance is considerably lower. Good analogue of most video game style shotguns too!

We also see the shotgun used to take down one of the fliers (the one that ends up falling on the General). The fact that the shotgun is underutilized isn't any more egregious than the underutilization of any of their other weapons, including the Ba-Nuke-as and the bombers.

In addition to the general in-effectiveness of the MI's main weapon, it is also a very large and bulky weapon. The current trend, IRL, has been to decrease the size and weight of infantry rifles. This isnt being done to make troopers lives easier, but to reduce fatigue. But this is mainly so they can carry more ammo. The MI's main weapon, even if they do use composities, still looks heavy, and also very clumsy to aim and fire. The prop bit that shows MI troopers handing out bullets to the children clearly indicates the weapons are not caseless, and the shell caseings are huge. Carrying any quantity of ammo for such a weapon would be beyond tireing. Especially for a force that has no motorized ground transport and seems to walk everywhere. Michael Ironsides Character is shown useing a small-compact carbine, it seems no less effective than the MI main rifle, is far easier to handle and fire, yet he seems to be only one that rates such a weapon.

How well it was done, and if it should have been done without tarnishing a beloved novel by an American icon, is a matter of some debate.

When Dizzy dies, they put her body in a coffin and just eject it into space, where anything could happen to it - it could be a hazard, the body could fall out etc. Wouldn't it make more sense, given the number of casualties they were having, to have some sort of cremation service available?

Most of the casualties didn't actually get funerals, because their bodies were left behind. Dizzy only got a space-burial because they got her back onto the transport; for the rest of the dead, assuming their remains are recovered, the Federation will probably set up a military cemetery on Planet P after it's re-taken.

Perhaps they fired it at a sun?

It's a lot harder than it looks to Hurl It into the Sun. To the point at hand: there's a lot of empty space in space, despite what the fleet scenes suggest. The odds of something ever coming into contact with the coffin are minute. The odds of finding out about it are even more improbable.

It's not too hard to calculate where that coffin would go. It's probable that the coffin's trajectory would take it into a planet's atmosphere where it would burn up or out into extrasolar space where it would hardly be a bother to anyone.

So long as it's not launched on a trajectory that would put it into orbit around the planet, the odds that anyone will ever see that coffin again are minute. Especially if they sent it off perpendicular to the ecliptic for that solar system.

Would using a robot or some type of combined arms to fight the bugs have killed this movie?

Probably, but then so would using the fighting suits from the book.

Besides, just look at the robots from the Star Wars prequels and how useful they were.

It depends from the model and their use. The OOM/B1 (basic spindly prequel battle droid) was shit, but it was designed to be cheap and easy to manufacture and overwhelm through numbers, ideally just having so many show up any resistance decided not to bother fighting. The destroyer droids (big guys with shields) and B2 (bulkier droids seen in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were significantly tougher opponents. As relates to Starship Troopers, though. . . if this version of humanity really can't think of anything better to do than Zerg Rush, at least use troops that will be easier to repair or replace.

Was anyone else annoyed with how rushed the first film? I imagine Rico would have recorded his message to Carmen on his first night at camp. So, allow about a week or two for his message to get to Carmen. How is Carmen already qualified to fly a "half a million tons of starship" (God, I hate that line)? Did they use the Psychlo learning machine to train their pilots? Also, Zander signed up the day before her. How is HE already a flight instructor?

This is more of a film editing issue. The events that have taken place show the passage of time. Consider the statement, "Boots pretty tough, sometimes I think I won't make it" in the video letter for example. That doesn't sound like something a person would say after a week. On Carmen's side, she's become a cadet pilot. Similar training in the U.S. airforce represents about 22 weeks or more of training. I think the director didn't to focus on the training and didn't want to use a montage to show the passing of time.

Carmen alters the spaceship's course after only three weeks of traineeship, which leads to a collision with the asteroid, leaving the ship damaged. The captain says "thanks to Carmen" "lives have been saved" (there isn't any more damage). Praise for a beginner's mistake with dire consequences after being on board only for three weeks???

A collision that took out the communications tower, preventing the ship from sending a warning back to Earth, thus resulting in the deaths of 8 million people. Nice job breaking it, Carmen.

Carman had no way of knowing the asteroid would be there. And considering that they didn't notice it till it was right on top of them and no one else saw it till it struck Earth they probably wouldn't have noticed it if they'd continued on their first course.

The Captain wasn't an idiot - they realised Carmen was talent. Her re-plotted course was more efficient, and Zander signed off on it. It was sheer bad luck that put them in the path of the asteroid.

Really, if the blame falls on anyone in that sequence, it falls on Zander. As menioned, Carmen couldn't have known about that asteroid (they are REALLY hard to detect in interstellor space) and, when the situation arose, Zander specifically ordered her to hold on firing the emergency thrusters. Unless there was some sort of warm-up sequence (in which case the glass case wouldn't have been necessary) the hold order served no purpose.

If the bugs have no FTL capability, how are they able to attack Earth in the first place? It would've taken them hundreds of years to hurl an asteroid from a remote star system.

In the book, the Bugs had giant biological transport ships; I play the RPG, which borrows from the movie, the book, and the show. Also, it's never proven that the Bugs sent the asteroid. It could have been a Gulf of Tonkin attack, so the government would have a reason to declare war against an enemy that wasn't a threat at all.

The huge biological ships appear in the show. The asteroid was just fired with momentum, however. Either that or the conspiracy theory.

Correction: The book NEVER mentions whether or not Bug technology is biologically based. The book DOES, however, mention that the Bugs are technologically advanced enough to build spaceships and outfit all of their warriors with beam weaponry.

The bugs do have some kind of FTL ability becasue they are able to colonise other planets and they hit a ship moving at warp speed with their plasma in the third film.

It's been argued (for the movie), precisely for this FTL reason, that the meteorite was a deliberate inside job to further the Terrans need/want for war.

It seems clear that the Bugs have some sort of FTL, even if it's not clear whether or not they launched the astroid that struck Buenos Aires. Most likely the Bugs' capabilities are being far underplayed by the Federation propoganda.

What was the point (besides Rule of Drama) in the arbitrary delay in firing the Rodger Young's emergency thrusters when approaching the asteroid? It seems like it should have been just effective firing them immediately (unless there's some technical reason I'm unaware of), it's especially bothersome when the delay caused the loss of the ship's communications, thus leading to the Buenos Aires disaster in the first place.

Because Carmen is a show-off and Xander is an idiot.

Due to the coffee tilting at the distance they first noticed it, the asteroid had an impressive gravity field; if they fired the thrusters too early then they'd fall into the gravity field, too late and they slam side-long into the asteroid at full speed. They had to wait for the right moment to fire the thrusters and curve around the asteroid in a slingshot, much like the ending to the movie Armageddon.

This. The gravity field was huge, enough to counteract the artificial gravity of the ship - i.e. it was a bloody huge asteroid.

Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale again. If the asteroid was big enough to generate that kind of gravity, it wouldn't have just wiped out the one city it landed on. We're talking global annihilation.

Is there a Trope that describes the piece of propaganda that showed a murderer being caught, tried, convicted, and executed, in, what was most likely, a span of 8 hours? Seriously, I get that the future is authoritarian, but that some uber-efficient justice.

Lieutenant Rasczak. First off, he's missing his hand, and the prosthetic hand he has seems rather clumsy. Unless the wars purpose is to kill as many humans as possible on the battlefield, there is NO way, in any army, that he would be assigned a front line combat command with a missing hand-sorry. If he volunteered, he might be accepted for a support role on Earth, but that's about it. Secondly, he does not seem to be very good at his job. On the walk to the outpost, he orders his comm nco to higher ground, yet does not think to assign a section of troopers to cover him. Made worse, just moments earlier, he spies what could be enemy movement above him, but sends a single man up to high ground alone anyway. Then to top it all off, proceeds to 'mercy' (i.e. execute really) kill him when grabbed by a flying bug. If Rasczak is such a good shot, even with his missing hand, why does he not attempt to kill the bugs with his superior marksmanship, but instead finds if more expedient to kill his own man. How would soldiers feel if they knew there officer would is just as likely to kill them if they get into trouble than try to save them? Myself, I'd rather be badly injured, but alive, rather than simply shot out of hand with no attempt by my fellows to save me. Radscak is lucky his own troops are as dumb as he is, in any other army, he'd have to sleep with a loaded handgun in his bedroll. Nor is any attempt made to recover his body, dog tags, anything, he's just left where he was. Later, at the outpost, he's shown as being fully prepared to execute a hysterical senior staff officer on the spot, with witnesses no less, and no authorization whatsoever to do so. I'm pretty sure Lieutenants executing generals is frowned upon in most militaries. How he commands such loyalty amoung his troops is a real headscratcher given his total lack of concern for there lives and his enthusiasm for summary execution.

Far from a headscratcher. The military is massively different to today. Individual deaths are pretty irrelevant - everyone gets on with it. The General was being a coward, and in this system it doesn't matter who he is, he's lost the merits of the rank. Rasczak kills the comm trooper because retrieving him would put too many in danger of the same fate, and one lost trooper is better than several. It was also a mercy killing, as the bug was in the process of filleting him alive.

He's a good enough shot that his hand must be a fairly decent model, and you'll notice that artificial limbs are a common sight in the military. They have very little regard for human life. As for his behavior, again, the military has little regard for human life. He gets the job done, which is presumably why he has his post. The specific shootings mentioned do have some extenuating circumstances. The flier bug dragged that dude way up the cliff and had torn him up pretty bad. That guy was a goner. No one ever bothers to grab tags; if you don't come back, you're dead. They don't need his tags to report him as such. Rico had the good sense to stop him the second time. It's clear at that point that Radscak is just pragmatic to the point of stupidity.

Not grabbing tags is one thing, not sending anyone up the cliff to grab the radio from the sergeant he'd shot is an entirely different matter. If the bugs hadn't overlooked the communication gear when they trashed everything at that outpost, they'd all have been dead meat.

This is actually a movie plot hole. In the original book the armless teacher was a different character, lieutenant colonel (retired) Dubois, and did not re-enlist precisely because prostetics were too clumsy for the battlefield. Same reason the legless sergeant, the enlistment center and the paraplegic drill sergeant and blind history teacher at the military academy, and the other mutilated soldiers do paperwork or jobs that don't involve physical effort: they are too clumsy for actual physical effort, but their brains still work (in fact the paraplegic drill sergeant is noted by Rico to be just as good as Zim, if more sadistic in his comments) and they decided to not retire.

Not a plot hole. You were just stating differences between the book and the film. In the FILM, his prosthetic hand is good enough to handle and fire weapons, ergo he still serves.

My take was that the re-enlistment of an older man with a prosthetic hand indicated just how desperate they were getting for fresh meat, much like the later scene of teenage-looking recruits.

Actually it's stated in the film that his kids got killed (presumably in BA like Rico's parents). Since he was a teacher prior to the war, it's clear he re-enlisted and was pressed back into service as an officer.

I figured that it was a case of Technology Marches On. The author couldn't imagine things like prostheses working as well as they do even now. Hard to imagine a civilization with FTL travel that can't make an operational hand even as well as we can in the modern day.

How many metal hands like the one in the film have you seen (clue: anything other than 'none' is a lie) in 2015?

In 2015, a blatantly-obvious prosthesis isn't usually a status symbol ("I served and was wounded, ergo I'm a citizen and to be honored."), so they're built to be more lifelike. And the previous post was comparing Real Life prosthetics to the ones in the novel, which weren't much of an improvement on the old hook-and-strap gripper designs.

If you notice, the radio the man was using was missing at the time that he was shot, which means that either it fell off while the Hopper was carrying him, or, the Hopper tore it off of him before sticking him. Now, the reason to send him to higher ground was due to the terrain messing with the signal. I imagine that in this case, the radioman likely figured that there wasn't any danger in doing that, and proceeded to move without any additional support. Also, up until then, the Hopper hadn't been encountered, so it's likely that the unit figured that since the bugs are basically glued to the ground, any threats would be where the rest of the unit could see, and kill them before they could be a legitimate threat to him.

No one ever gets briefed in the Federation. No really. Captain Deladier(sp?) seems to have received some very cursory, and inaccurate briefs about the invasion of Klendathu. However, she did not seem to feel it necessary to pass any of that information along to you know, her bridge crew. Presumably this is case throughout the entire fleet as well. Carmen seems to have no idea what they should be expecting. Rico's unit officer also seems to not have been briefed either, provided with maps, or indeed, any sort of objectives or battle plan or the role of him and his troops in it, besides hit the ramp screaming and fire at anything with more than 2 legs. The only briefing the troops get is on the way down. Which is rather funny thing to say, given the feds willingness to execute there own on the spot for the slightest of reasons. As an aside, if Carmen is such a hot pilot, why could she not evade the rather slow moving uhhh.. plasma bolts. Even if the purpose of not briefing the fleet the bugs had ship killing capability was to intentionally cause the destruction of a few of its own ships, you would think she would be good enough to avoid a hit.

Starships are big, slow, and the space they were in had them parked way too close together. Also, the bugs were just spamming tons of plasma. That Carmen got her ship out with a scrape the first time is a testament to her skill, not a mark against it.

And before anybody asks why the ships were so close together... that was actually straight out of the book. And it was explicitely spelled out in hindsight as a terrible idea in the book too (in the book, the two ships collided all on their own: They tried to come out of hyperspace in tight formation to allow them to commence the drop before the bugs could react, but someone was off on their math and two ships plowed into each other immediately. The rest of the battle went rapidly downhill from there.) The Invasion of Klendathu in both the book and movie is a clusterfuck of truly astronomical proportions.

In the ST universe it's quite clear the Federation is very rarely telling everyone everything. All Deladier knew was that the plasma bombardment would be 'random and light' - this is either faulty intel or simply not enough intel given to the fleet. The invasion of Klendathu was meant to be a kerb-stomp. Why do you think they had CAMERA CREWS there? The Federation leaders and the Sky Marshal though they'd land on Klendathu, wipe out any resistance with superior firepower, nuke the bug holes and be home in time for tea and biscuits. The bugs waited until everyone had disembarked, then attacked en masse having clearly hidden their true numbers. Therefore the expeditionary force was largely slaughtered. It isn't simply because 'it's a movie' or 'the generals were stupid'; there was an actual reason they attacked the way they did. They rapidly change tactics after Klendathu.

Are the star ships piloted only by eye or something because it seems like there should have been warning of an asteroid on a collision course with the ship before the pilots could see it themselves.

That's Carmen's fault. She is demonstrably reckless. She replotted the course. The ship likely detected the asteroid before that, but there was no chance of a collision. After she did, it was right there.

But again if the computer detected something then wouldn't it have some sort of warning. "You have plotted a course that will kill us all. Would you like some help?" And didn't Zander check her course corrections?

The computer did give a warning... when they were falling into the asteroid's gravity well. That implies either very ineffective sensors or some kind of stealthed asteroid (which would lend credence to the asteroid strike being intentional, if not making it clear who launched it).

This movie is frequently described as anti-war / anti-military. I certainly see it as anti-fascist, and it satirizes military culture. It shows the Federation military as brutally gung ho but spectacularly incompetent. The message I take from it is ďHaving an effective military isnít about talking tough or looking tough, you need to actually study the art of war and put together an efficient, well-organized military campaign.Ē It seems like the movie is really attacking those who play at war instead of being serious about winning wars. Does this really count as anti-military or anti-war? I mean, the Keystone Cops isnít exactly ďanti-policeĒ, it is just a comedy about how funny it would be if police were totally incompetent.

It's called anti-war and anti-military because 1) it doesn't show any actual division between the military and fascism, 2) it portrays the majority of the military as callous, vicious, stupid, or some combination thereof, 3) the director said it's an anti-war movie and that he thinks Heinlein was a fascist.

It's anti-jingoist and anti-authoritarian, maybe anti-fascist, if you assume certain values of fascism that the movie didn't make clear. But on plain military tropes, it portrays virtues like courage and self-sacrifice, as well as the intense comradeship that develops between brothers in arms. I could see people being drawn to military service by the film — just not the kind where you get torn apart by bugs.

Why do people see the movie as anti-fascist? Fascism was a particular political philosophy which calls for a strong dictator, with the government controlling all of society, including the economy. Fascists rejected democracy entirely. If anything the movie, by portraying the democratically-run military so incompetently, is pro-fascist. (Well, I know the reason: as Orwell pointed out, fascism now means anything the writer disagrees with.)

That's assuming the Federation's "democracy" of citizen-vets is any more legitimate than their judicial system or media. How likely is that, especially in a Verse where the state has a monopoly on Psychic Powers, i.e. mind control?

The Federation is portrayed as a government that exalts the glory of the state, uses propaganda to glorify military service in the service of the state as the highest ideal, and controls the media with unrealistic propaganda extolling the success of the state and its military, and does all of this with a right-wing rather than left-wing feel. It feels very much in the fascist/Nazi sort of vein. It is not truly the same as classic fascism in that it calls itself a democracy, but this isn't inconsistent with totalitarianism. Totalitarian communist states are called democracies, hold elections, and in theory anyone could join the Communist party ("service to the state") and become part of the ruling class. But the feel of the Federation is more fascist than communist, so while it is its own unique form of government, "fascist" is the closest term I can think of when describing it.

In the film why do they list Rico as KIA when they have him in regeneration? In fact how did they even regenerate him? Based on how visceral the bugs are and the fact Rico was utterly abandoned in the retreat I doubt they retrieved anything worthwhile of him. So why did he get chosen for regeneration? At that point he was merely a private and I don't see how they had anything left to heal of him. By listing him as KIA it's just going to cause untold sorrow to whoever sees it, like it does his ex-girlfriend. If it was a generic trooper his family could read his fatality statistic, hold a funeral for the trooper, only to get a message a few weeks later from their late son fresh from regeneration. By listing it as basic "KIA" instead of "KIA-Regenerating" it's just going to confuse matters. The girlfriend only found out Rico was alive later when they met face to face again. Also if this technology exists why is anyone's death treated with consequence. Later on in the film Rico's ex-teacher and CO dies and he held a more important rank and his body was equally irretrievable like Rico's was. Why not regenerate that guy? Or Rico's lover who they retrieved the body of, she was a squad commander, a higher rank than when Rico himself was regenerated and he weeps tears over her instead of thinking to put her in for regeneration.

The KIA is probably just a mistake in the filing—someone hit the wrong button, and he was listed wrong. And you're completely misunderstanding what's going on in that scene. He was never killed. The idea is that Raczak managed to retrieve Rico during the retreat. Just because the scene cut out on Rico doesn't mean he was actually dead.

It didn't just 'cut' out on him it showed him shooting wildly on his own after the entire line had retreated he was unable to move and wounded. He distinctly ran out of ammo as another approached and when it blacks out it blacks out from the inside of the bug's mouth. No sign of rescue approaching and everything hinted at his death.

"Hinted" =/= "confirmed." It's to create narrative tension. The point is to make you think that he's dead, then surprise you with him being alive. Hell, when Rico joins the Roughnecks, it's directly pointed out to him that Razcak retrieved him on the way off the planet. The clear implication is after the camera cut out, Raczak showed up, blasted that bug, and hauled Rico's ass back to a dropship. There's nothing in the movie that ever implies that they can bring people back from the dead.

Rico's only major injury is shown to be the puncture through his leg. It probably did almost kill him, but someone got a tourniquet on him in time. Basically the bug swings its pinchers down, one of them punctures his leg, and he's tossed about a bit. The bug probably figured he was dead after that and threw him down and moved on to other, livelier prey. Him getting listed KIA was, as said, probably a filing error. Hell, with the way casualties went at Klendathu, they probably just marked everyone who was on the front lines and not standing there afterwards to say otherwise as KIA, figuring it'd be easier to sort out and fix the ones who weren't afterward.

In Universe, the answer is simple: He was rescued by a completely different unit. His own platoon limped back to the dropships, took roll and probably assumed he was dead. Raczak is from a different unit, grabbed him during his own retreat and probably didn't know who he belonged to.

Personally, I find it odd that since there were no actual witnesses to Rico's "death" that he is listed as KIA instead of MIA.

The Bugs don't take prisoners, Zander says so to Carmen. Anyone left behind would have been hunted down and killed.

We don't know that there's no witnesses. He was running among other guys, one of them could've easily looked back, seen him get his leg wrecked, and assumed he went down.

Did Carmen really decide to stay with Rico when they were going off to possibly not see each other for two years minimum and then less than three weeks into just her training decide that things were just not going to work out?

No. Carmen decided to stay with Rico when they were going off to not see each other for two years, maximum. She decided it wasn't going to work out when she decided she wanted to go career.

She already wasn't as into the relationship as he was; she looked like she ate a bug when he nagged her into saying "I love you" before they left. She just didn't have the heart to break it off in person.

If you've ever wondered why she is The Scrappy, well there you go. Rico changed the course of his entire life and jeopardized the relationship with his parents just to be with her and yet at no point did she see fit to mention the fact that she was considering breaking up. Not having the heart is one interpretation; cowardice another. But there are many that believe that she did what she did purely because the thought of controlling someone else's life to such a level made her feel good - which when you think about it, being a low-level sociopath would fit in very nicely with the Humans Are the Real Monsters theme of this film.

So we see robotic hands that seem to work as well as human hands. When we see the soldier that processes Rico and Carmen's paperwork at the beginning of the movie, he has no legs. So no robotic legs in the future?

They probably do, but this was something taken from the book. In the book, the recruiter is similarly crippled and takes applications exactly like that. Immediately after he clocks out for the day, he puts on prosthetics that work perfectly and explains to Rico that he goes without them while on the job so that potential recruits know exactly what they're getting themselves into, as a way to weed out the squeamish.

OP here, thanks for that. That part of the movie always bugged me.

The books political system never made any sense to me. The only people who are allowed to vote are the ones who have performed military service? So the ruling party has essentially ensured that it will never be voted out, because the only people who can oust them are likely to either agree with everything they do, or die before they get a chance to vote at all? And this is a GOOD thing? Not to mention there's that whole "taxation without representation" thing that's a big deal in some places. It seems a lot like the book promotes the idea that if you arent willing to get yourself mutilated for it, you dont deserve to have a say in how your society is run.

Median voter theory. Even if people mostly agree over what the government should do, they're never going to perfectly agree. So, even if ex-military voters agree on 99% of things exactly, there's space for a new political party to arise that appeals to the ex-military voters who differ from the ruling party on the remaining 1%. Kinda like how even when the government in power changes in a modern democracy, they don't tend to decriminalise murder, or disband all the schools, or shut down all the prisons, because virtually everyone agrees on them, instead political parties differ based on the things many people do disagree on.

Secondly, yes the book does promote the idea that if you're not willing to sacrifice your limbs, or even your life, for your society, you don't deserve to have a say in how it is run. If you want to read literature that exactly conforms to the values of say, the average New York Times reader, then don't read Heinlein. Personally one of the things I like about Heinlein is that he often explicitly disagrees with my values. He doesn't necessarily convince me (he rather handwaves the argument for that idea in the book by just asserting that it works pretty well in his SF story, just like assserting that FTL travel works pretty well), but personally I find it refreshing to have my assumptions challenged.

People in the West assume that which is different is also wrong. They assume that because the system in ST isn't 'true' Democracy, then it couldn't possibly work, which is pro-Democracy propaganda in itself. Truth be told, the system presented has a LOT of merits. The only people allowed to have a say in the running of society, are those willing to do everything to defend/serve it. So Citizens get perks - the vote, lower taxes, licences for children early, the ability to stand for office etc. In the book, Citizens that set up companies are given more subsidies and lower taxes by the government. Some people still prefer to be Civilians, but that's fine, and the Federation doesn't force them to serve. But they'll never have the perks. It's an admirable attempt to present a vision of a democratic yet responsible society. The people that get to shape it, are the ones willing to stand up and be counted when things are tough rather than sitting around and letting other people do the hard stuff. Many parallels with our current society.

There is mention in the book that "federal service" allows one to become a full citizen and get the right to vote, not just military service. What sort service qualifies one for a vote and what doesn't is a point of debate among the books readership. Also mentioned is that anyone who can understand the oath qualifies for service and can earn their franchise. The government is required to find duties they can perform and allow them a reasonable opportunity to earn their citizenship, even if it's just busy work. So the voters are not all combat veterans.

Look at it from the other angle. If our modern political systems had restrictions on exactly who could vote (and who could be voted for), some problems might just clear themselves up. Don't let the film confuse you. . . the government Heinlein was talking about wasn't a jingoistic military dictatorship brainwashing people to follow their ideals. His idea was that voting and political service were power, and power without responsibility will always be misused. Thus, the only people who should have power (the ability to vote or run for office) are those who have proven they have the responsibility to wield that power well. If real-life modern politicians (and voters, for that matter) had a greater sense of responsibility about their power, it's safe to say it would be lot easier to get things done.

Well to some extend all countries do have some limits on who can vote and who can be elected, the most common are to be older than 18 and not been a foreigner (although some countries like Argentina allow legal foreign residents and minors over 16 to vote but are the exception and not the rule), this Verse only added one more requirement to be a citizen besides age and naturalization. Similarly in the USA convicted felons canít vote, some people will say thatís unfair (convicted felons do vote in most countries and even some places have voting polls in prisons) as felons or not theyíre still citizens, and of course in some places you have to be citizen by birth to be elected to certain offices. So, in a similar way in how currently most countries establish a series of demands for a person to be considered a full citizen and been able to vote, same in this case just they add an extra requirement that is not common in any modern country that Iím aware off.

In the book, it says that nobody who signs up can be turned down regardless of background, gender, etc., even if they have physical disabilities that restrict the work they can do; we could only argue that this would result in a bunch of "yes-men" if we believe that only one very rare and specific kind of political affiliation will result in someone being willing to volunteer for the Armed Forces, and we just don't see that happening in real life.

In the book there is mentioned that you can also achieve Citizenship by working on terraforming of Venus, "serving as lab rat", digging tunnels on the Moon and unspecified work in the Antarctica.

How did Carmen survive the collision? When the ship hit the asteroid, she fell right into the controls as they blew. Later, we see her, not only still alive, but with just a cut across her forehead.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy